Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grazzt" data-source="post: 2236494" data-attributes="member: 7">Agreed- and IMC we have done just that. Using the 3e/3.5 rules with a definite 1e feel to it all (but that is a thread for another day I guess).So- what I didnt like about 1E (to keep this on topic):- Bards. Too much of a pain in the ass to play/become a bard. Actually, in all my years of gaming (started in 81/82 with D&D) I think I only ever saw ONE PERSON play a bard. - Psionics. Just didnt like them. Even Gygax has said he wished he hadnt included them...and I tend to agree.- Weapon speeds. I understand what was trying to be accomplished (a dagger would probably strike faster than a longsword), but it really didnt work well. Sure, a dagger may strike faster than a longsword,  but you have to get past the longsword first to strike <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's really it. I am sure there might be other stuff if I thought hard about it, but those three come to mind. The other stuff Ive seen mentioned (level limits for demi-humans for example) we simply changed or ignored completely. Wasn't really all that hard to do actually.The multitude of tables and charts, while annoying at times, were what we had. Its easy now to look back and say it was a pain in the ass, but back then most people I know or gamed with didnt really feel that way...it was what it was...and peeps used them and dealt with it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Could 1E have been better? Probably. Were the rules scattered and jumbled across various books? Yes...but the same can be said for 2E and now 3E/3.5 as well. Just how the system itself progresses. And once 4E comes out all the rules will be in one or two books...until the expansion books come out. Then they will be scattered again. Then we wait for 5E. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As for the edition wars crap...who cares. Play what you like. Play what makes you the happiest. Comparing editions is just about like comparing apples to oranges. I mean, peeps can say "The art is much better in 3e." "The layout is much better." and so on. Well, I would hope it would be....1E came out like 30 years ago and technology has expanded and grown by leaps and bounds making production values and whatnot 1000x better.I agree with what was said above about 3e/3.5 being a much more complex game (in the sense that there are a ton of rules that try to cover every situation)...BUT...Ive never stopped a game to look up a rule. I make a judgement call on the spot and look it up after the game (just like we did in 1E). If I made a mistake...oops. It happens. Next time the same situation arises perhaps I'll remember the rule.So- while 3e/3.5 is geared (or seems to be) more toward the players than the DM, it doesnt mean the DM has to take what the players give him. He is still the final judge when it comes to the rules and his campaign. House rules have existed since D&D...and I am sure they will continue to do so.</blockquote>

Verification